Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

candid9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 519 posts

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#311

Post by patrakov »

Regarding the focal length difference, which is very well illustrated by the first two photographs, I would frame this point differently from what the article does.

Disclaimer: I don't have an iPhone 16, but my Poco X4 Pro 5G suffers from the same "fisheye" issue with its 25mm-equivalent lens. And I am not a professional photographer.

It is not a "bad camera" issue, but a composition issue forced by the short focal length second and the users' aversion to cropping the image first. You can easily avoid this issue by shooting at 2x digital zoom (or cropping) and going 2x further from the scene. And 2x zoom (with the corresponding decrease in the resolution of the resulting files) is how I shoot the majority of my photos.

So yes, I effectively have a 3MP camera, not 12MP (and not the hyper-marketed 108MP AI camera), and, for many purposes, it's still good enough.

P.S. Composition matters a lot. The right photo has the right proportions between the players and the trees in the background. The inclusion of the yellow golf flag in the "beginner photographer's" photo is also what makes the scene more complete artistically and worth hanging on the wall.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#312

Post by throwanem »

its-summertime wrote: post #195
throwanem wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should, however, so judge the claim that the photos are directly comparable, as is attempted here. I honestly can't tell what the site author is trying to do. Criticizing oversaturation is reasonable. Claiming the camera is responsible for differences in pose and composition is madness.

The claim is that the pose hasn't changed, but how the camera represents the pose has, due to distortion, perspective, et al.

I understand that that's the claim, yes. The author does an unsatisfactory job of defending it, which is extremely strange considering on how many axes an image out of a dedicated camera is palpably preferable to that from a phone, with its physical constraints and computational compensations.

I do shoot with both because I'm not foolish enough to think good work can't be forced from poor tools, but I know the difference between a camera that works with me, and a phone that mostly won't. This author appears not really to understand that difference clearly, identifying accurately some flaws and differences resulting from real constraints, and inventing others from accidents of poor test procedure such as obvious changes in pose between serially taken shots.

It's a confusing way to advertise his "Candid9" service to photographers; as one of those it leaves me hoping he's better as a programmer, and as a programmer it leaves me wondering why I should trust someone with such a questionable grasp of my problem domain has produced software that will successfully serve my needs.

I mean, when I do street work, I just get a phone number or email address and that works fine. What do I need with a QR code that requires a printer to produce? Good grief, I'm the only one I know who still runs on paper, I own three printers, and I haven't found a credible way to like QR codes! What does all this extra complication add for anyone involved, except some Michigander who wants a piece of what I'm doing for no good reason I can see?

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#313

Post by dialup_sounds »

silisili wrote: post #263
ezst wrote: post #255

To me, the "hotdog skin complexion" aspect is a dead giveaway for when a photo was taken on an iPhone. It's so over the top and unrefined that I wonder how not only Apple let it happen, but seemingly entertain it/make it worse over generations of devices? Certainly such photos won't "age well"? And it's not like it has to be this way because of technological limitations, take Pixel photos, for instance, they get thei…

Same with Pixel, which actually did it years before I'd presume. I'm white as ghost. Pixels are determined to make me looked tan for absolutely no reason. I mean, maybe I look 'better', arguably, but it's not me. Is that what people want? I bought the kid some newfangled Polaroid type thing, and she uses that way more than phones anymore for photos. Maybe the kids will be ok.

Google made an publicized effort to better represent darker skin tones, which may explain the tan. It probably thinks you're overexposed and desaturated instead of pale.

https://store.google.com/intl/en/ideas/real-tone/

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#314

Post by vladvasiliu »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #244
dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

You're completely off base on the focal length argument. A traditional camera has the choice and can choose the most appropriate length; an Iphone is locked in to a fish-eye clearly put in there to overcome its inherent limitations. So it doesn't really matter "if it's fair" or not, because it's not about a fair comparison, it's a demonstration that a traditional camera is just better. Why should the traditional came…

I'm not sure I get your point.

Most appropriate length for what? Some iPhones have multiple focal lengths, just like some "real camers" have fixed lenses with a fixed focal length (Fuxji x100 and the medium-format one whose model I can't remember, Leica something-or-other, Sony R1).

Plus, for what is a traditional camera "just better"? It's highly usage dependent.

I have both a bludgeon, which can be used as an interchangeable lens camera, and an iPhone. The first doesn't fit in my pocket, so sometimes the latter is the one I grab, since it's "better" for that specific use case.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#315

Post by Karrot_Kream »

neya wrote: post #216
dagmx wrote: post #38

The points really boil down to: 1. Difference in focal length/ position. 2. Difference in color processing But…the article is fairly weak on both points? 1. It’s unclear why the author is comparing different focal lengths without clarifying what they used. If I use the 24mm equivalent on either my full frame or my iPhone, the perspective will be largely the same modulo some lens correction. Same if I use the 70mm or…

I disagree, I thought the article highlighted the differences beautifully. I'm on a professionally color calibrated 27" monitor that came with one of those color calibration "certificates" at the time of purchase. The second I loaded the article, the differences were just stark. The skin tones alone were a dead giveaway. It is no secret that Apple does a lot of post processing on their mediocre photos to make them lo…

My hunch is that you'll find more fans of Apple's color profile than detractors. This particular shot may have done it badly (to your eyes, some people prefer the more saturated look) but as a whole I have my doubts.

Color profiles vary per body at the least and are variable based on what post processing you do. I can load up Adobe Vivid and it'll look completely different than Adobe Portrait.

Shoot a Canon, Sony, and Fuji in JPG on the same scene (so same focal length and DOF) and auto white balance. Each body will output a different image.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#316

Post by Quarrel »

prox wrote: post #296
dkga wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the point… but I would counterargue, perhaps facetiously, that if one needs a professionally color calibrated screen to notice the difference, then it is really not something that would matter for mere mortals.

Without hyperbole I could give people a badly calibrated CRT from the 90s and it doesn’t matter to some. Some people just don’t see anything wrong with pictures, and don’t even know what to look for or what it’s called. The inverse are the professional photographers who work with pictures day in and out, they see everything.

I am amazed at the eye professional photographers have. A shot of a building that is suddenly really interesting, versus my shot of that building. Colour. Angle. etc.

I just don't have the eye for it, despite having a decent amateur setup.

BUT, yes, lots of people might look at a random photo on their phone and not notice skintones, or the fisheye etc. If you then give them a pile of 10 photos from a pro, versus 10 from an amateurs phone, they'll notice. Particularly if they're blown up a bit on a print or a decent screen.

It might not matter if you are just flicking through 20 shots on your phone, but as the article implies, we have perception of these things, even when it is the subconscious.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#317

Post by patrakov »

pmontra wrote: post #292

The average person does not know anything about all of this. I start with TV sets. The usual way to chose one was walking into a shop, looking at dozen of TVs tuned on the same channel, picking the ones that subjectively looked best then check the price and size. Did we (average people) cared about the inner workings of the TV? Nearly zero. Enter cheap compact digital cameras (200-300 Euro or Dollars.) We didn't have…

> So, those 5 golf players look better on the camera but their picture will be taken and shared with a phone 99.9999% of the times.

The point not in the article is that a phone camera, when used correctly (i.e., not defaulting to 1x zoom, maintaining a proper distance from the subject, and choosing wisely what's in the background), can produce photos of the same kind as a real camera in terms of composition. And that's what should be shared 99.9999% of the time. The extra resolution does not matter online, as most people will not zoom beyond what the platform, such as DeviantArt, offers as the default viewing experience - which is approximately 50% of the screen width, i.e., 1920 pixels on 4K displays.

Re: iPhone 16 cameras vs. traditional digital cameras

#320

Post by shakow »

Ancapistani wrote: post #284
shakow wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very contemptuous thing to say. Even if one is using in-camera JPEG and does not want to spend 1hr/picture in Darktable, they can still play with many more objectives, exposure, shutter time, physical zoom, aperture, etc. I'd even go the other way around: if you just bought a camera, just use in-camera JPEGs for the first months and familiarize yourself with all the rest (positioning, framing, understanding…

> That's a very contemptuous thing to say. I really don't think it is. When I pick up a camera, my intent is one of two things: the experience of photography itself, or the best quality I can reasonably obtain. Neither of those goals are attained with a smartphone. Every other time I take a photo , it's with a smartphone. It's easily good enough for the vast majority of use cases. > Even if one is using in-camera JPE…

All that you said is perfectly valid for your usecase. But you can't just make your use case a generality.

Some people have a camera because they want to take better pictures than their smartphone but don't want to bother with post-processing, some have tried manual processing and found that the work/result balance was not doing it for them, some think that JPEGs look perfectly fine, some just don't have the time to do the processing... there are myriads of reason for which people would like to land somewhere between “let iOS do it” and “I systematically chose my ISO according to this Darktable script I developed these last years”.

Post reply on HN